View full sizeThe City of Pelham has responded to accusations of wrongdoing for failing to approve a negotiated settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by a group of firefighters in May 2010 over unpaid overtime and other benefits. (Birmingham News file photo)

PELHAM, Alabama -- City of Pelham lawyers are accusing attorneys
representing a group of firefighters who are suing the municipality in a
class-action lawsuit of violating the confidentiality provisions of their mediation
process and publicizing information about proposed settlement efforts.

The firefighters' lawyers "engaged in a coordinated flank
attack against the City by aggressively going public with the mediation
process, including terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. These two frontal
assaults on the negotiations could have but one insidious ulterior motive: to
ensure that the City's right to a fair trial is compromised," Pelham's lawyers
stated in their motion.

Pelham responded to last Monday's motion by lawyers Inge
Johnstone and Heather Leonard, who want a judge to examine the city's decision
to reject a settlement contained in a memorandum of understanding signed by Mayor
Gary Waters and other parties to the case.

A group of Pelham firefighters -- Kenneth Camp, Michael
Todd McCarver, Patrick Smith, Stephen Kiel and Randal Bearden -- filed
suit against the city in May 2010 concerning unpaid overtime and other
compensation.

The parties in the case underwent more than 25 hours of
mediation on Aug. 19 and Oct. 10-11 that involved Waters and Fire Chief Danny
Ray and led to an agreement to settle the case, according to the motion by the
firefighters.

The memorandum of understanding signed by the plaintiffs,
attorneys in the case and Waters calls for the city to pay $610,000 in settlement
that includes back pay, damages, costs and attorneys' fees. It also called for
the city to adjust the fire department's sick and vacation leave accrual rate.

The City Council indicated opposition to the proposed
settlement in its Nov. 4 meeting agenda, which had a resolution objecting to the deal.
The council during its work session that night decided to postpone a vote on
the proposed resolution.

Pelham pointed out the memorandum of understanding includes
language explicating stating the document requires council approval to become
effective.

"Because the Memorandum of Understanding explicitly
states, 'The settlement is subject to approval by the City Council,' it is
clear that the agreement was expressly conditioned on the City Council's
approval," according to Pelham's response, which notes "there is not an
enforceable contract."

Pelham's response emphasizes that the council "controls
the City's purse strings" and no municipal funds "can be spent without Council
action." The mayor can execute contracts on behalf of the city, but the council
must approve them in a public meeting, according to Pelham's response.

Pelham's lawyers deny the allegations by the firefighters
that municipal leaders acted in bad faith in the settlement process.

"Here, the City has litigated and mediated this case in
good faith, and there is no evidence that the City has acted to defraud,
harass, or oppress either the Court or the Plaintiffs. To the contrary, the
proper officials from the city attended over twenty-five hours of mediation and
did so as much as possible within their individual authority to reach a reasonable
settlement that would be in the best interest of the Plaintiffs and the City,"
Pelham's response states.

The city's lawyers are rejecting demands by the
firefighters to disclose information about what was discussed concerning the
mediation and the case by citing attorney-client privilege as well as
legislative privilege. The council met in closed-door executive session on Oct.
21 with its legal representation to discuss the proposed settlement, according
to the city's response.

Pelham is asking the judge to reject the firefighters'
motion to enforce a settlement. The city wants the plaintiffs' attorneys to
abide by confidentiality obligations while allowing the municipality to respond
publicly to "inaccurate and misleading statements in the press."

The firefighters' attorneys are asking the judge to rule
on the matter by enforcing the settlement terms in the memorandum of
understanding.

"The facts indicate that the City negotiated in bad
faith, knowing that the mayor and the City's lawyers did not have the authority
to agree to a settlement on behalf of the City and had no idea whether the
terms they agreed to would be approved or not, negotiated knowing that the
terms of the settlement would not be approved, or agreed to the settlement and
then sought to bring about its rejection by the City Council," according to their
motion.

A hearing on the matter is set for 10:30 a.m. on Friday
in the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham.